Spider-Man 3

Average, sometimes incredibly bad and naive. Raimi wanted everything - depth and fun - and he came up with awkward CGI coloring pages with an unconvincing protagonist and such conspicuous clichés that they can't even be enjoyed. Visually, Spidey offers nothing new, and inside the film rumbles like an empty barrel, despite trying to look very wise and thoughtful. Taken as a whole, it doesn't hold together in any way, and Maguira's performance is truly the culmination... This was simple not very good. (08/11/2008)

A very inconsistent movie and unnecessarily long. Raimi didn’t learn his lesson from the mistakes in the first two movies he made, far from it, he even makes them again and again, making this extremely painful to watch. The screenplay is bad, real bad. After getting rid of the whole original mythology it creates a brand new one, only much worse. What worked in the first two movies is completely out of place here, landing Parker in illogical situations and what he then does is more than just bizarre (I can’t even call it pretentious) humiliating himself in front of the viewer. I was literally praying for Parker to get into his suit or for the story moves to focus on one of the many villains. The action is great as usual and Venom, as I see it, was pretty good, but there should be hell of a lot more of him. Sandman’s tricks are among the high points of the movie although Flint Marko himself comes across a bit stiff. The biggest surprise was the character of Harry Osborn who became a much bigger hero than Spider-Man himself. (12/06/2007)

After a seven-year gap, I re-watched the third Spider-Man movie, and I must admit it's even worse than I remembered. It's incredibly cliché, and the screenplay is sometimes even dumb. Important storylines here are resolved simply or with an easy twist that's not even believable. The potential of new characters, especially Venom, is completely wasted. It's not a total disaster, but at times, it's not even particularly enjoyable. That’s too bad. Hopefully, The Amazing Spider-Man will maintain a good standard with its future installments. (06/04/2014)

My favorite part of the trilogy and apart from Kirsten Dunst, Bryce Dallas Howard is also a nice addition. I have no idea where the mistake was made, but keep the same satisfied audience for five years if they have enough of it. In retrospect, I appreciate many things, including the compactness of the series, the light humor, and the use of a generous number of characters. And I certainly don't feel that there is too much pathos. They’ve taken some of it away compared to the second one, which is much more extreme. And MJ at the theater? A total fairy tale. (13/02/2011)

The first two episodes boasted that unique Raimi’s signature that makes me appreciate them as modest little-big movies created out of pure love for the original comics. Compared to them, the third one is fake, pompous and seemingly hungry not for the support of the fans but for a big chunk of money... A blockbuster that is noisier, more megalomaniacal and more sprawling than its two predecessors, mocking itself in a figuratively and emotionally overblown finale that juxtaposes a heartfelt life confession and a tearful J.K. Simmons haggling with a little girl over how much she wants for her camera. Raimi’s direction is still better than good, the action sequences have the proper charge and the illegibility of the main character saves everything, but this is no longer the original Spiderman, it lacks personality and a surprising motif, just like all current comic book adaptations. 65% (21/07/2012)